My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-28-98 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
01-28-98 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 5:00:48 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:58:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 28, 1998 <br />Rick Montour, 2986 DeSoto Street, reported that he lives across the street <br />from Pitrina Park Terrace. Montour indicated that he supported the si~n <br />request since he believed it would help sell the townhomes and result in <br />the development being completed faster. Montour reported that the <br />property owners in the area would rather see the off-premise sign at <br />Edgerton/Allen eliminated than the one at Edgerton/Little Canada Road. <br />Montour felt that once Allen Avenue is improved through to Centerville <br />Road, that si~n could be eliminated as well. <br />Council acknowled~e receipt of a letter from Daniel Mahai, 620 Keller <br />Parkway, in opposition to the Conditional Use Permit. <br />There was no one else from the general public present wishing to <br />comment. <br />Upon motion by LaValle, seconded by Pedersen, the public hearing was <br />closed. <br />Morelan noted that the sign ordinance prohibits temporary off-premise <br />signs. The City Planner indicated that the si~n ordinance defines <br />temporary signs as those that are allowed up to ten days at a time. The <br />Masterpiece Homes' proposal is for a(ong period oftime although there is <br />a termination date. Therefore, the Planner indicated that he did not <br />consider the Masterpiece Homes request to be in the same cate~ory as the <br />temporary signs defined in the ordinance. <br />Morelan felt that the si~ns were temporary and were advertising signs <br />rather than directional. Morelan quoted the standards outlined in the <br />ordinance that must be met for off-site directional signs. These are: <br />• Access is questionable and/or confusing; <br />• Resultin~ traffic safety may bejeopardized, or traffic <br />inappropriately utilizes residential, minor streets; and <br />• Signage contains no advertisin~. <br />Morelan felt that this request did not fit the standards outlined in the <br />ordinance. Morelan felt that the situation was not a lot different than a <br />business in a remote area that wanted an off-premise sign to advertise that <br />business. <br />Fahey poi~ted out that others use off-premise signs without obtaining the <br />necessary permit. Fahey felt that the Code should be amended to allow <br />off-premise real estate si~ns that would allow people to advertise their <br />homes subject to reasonable ]imits and guidelines. Fahey felt wholesale <br />restrictions of these signs flies in the face of common sense. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.